The Bush Tax Cuts

[lookin]

Who said this, and when did they say it?

Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation's projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income.

Answer

Original signed letter (takes a few seconds to load)

[Guest Allessio77]

I do not expect the opinion of 10 NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS in Economics to make any difference to Republicans. Their plan is to destroy is to cripple and destroy the Federal Government.

[RA1]

As is the plan of the Democrats, but in a different way. We cannot all work for the government. Some have to have "real" jobs and pay those taxes that provide "fodder" for the government to be able to pay those who don't work or have real jobs.

Do you think that "rich" folks made their money with the "help" of the government or in spite of it?

Obviously, there are members of both groups but the ones who made it with the help of government did it through lobbyists or bills passed to promote various activities. That means that Congress critters participated. Shame on them.

For instance, is there any reason to have tax relief for the fact that oil is a limited commodity? If, in fact, there is a certain amount of oil in the earth, then why not provide tax relief through a depletion allowance? The answer is both political as well as economical. If there is plenty of oil and the oil companies are making profits beyond belief, then perhaps there is no or limited reason for a depletion allowance. However, so far, the Congress critters have allowed for same. If you disagree, vote them out.

In fact, I am in favor of voting them all out anyway and starting over, with term limits and sunset laws.

Best regards,

RA1

[Lucky]

Term limits means that your legislators never learn the ropes or amass enough power to get anything done.

[RA1]

And, the negative part of this is............?

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest hitoallusa]

Term limit won't work and is actually good for them. They can just go work as lobbyists or consultants. If they have a law degree then as a lawyer.

As is the plan of the Democrats, but in a different way. We cannot all work for the government. Some have to have "real" jobs and pay those taxes that provide "fodder" for the government to be able to pay those who don't work or have real jobs.

Do you think that "rich" folks made their money with the "help" of the government or in spite of it?

Obviously, there are members of both groups but the ones who made it with the help of government did it through lobbyists or bills passed to promote various activities. That means that Congress critters participated. Shame on them.

For instance, is there any reason to have tax relief for the fact that oil is a limited commodity? If, in fact, there is a certain amount of oil in the earth, then why not provide tax relief through a depletion allowance? The answer is both political as well as economical. If there is plenty of oil and the oil companies are making profits beyond belief, then perhaps there is no or limited reason for a depletion allowance. However, so far, the Congress critters have allowed for same. If you disagree, vote them out.

In fact, I am in favor of voting them all out anyway and starting over, with term limits and sunset laws.

Best regards,

RA1

[RA1]

That is under the present "system". If you are a one term Congress critter, why should anyone think you continue to have any influence? Already there are movements being floated to limit the ability of ex-government employees of any sort to work for private industry, especially any that had any dealings with your department or sphere of influence. Again, if one is limited to one term, why should there be an lingering influence?

Best regards,

RA1

In addition, if Congress critters who are limited to one term come to a consensus, aka compromise, how bad can it be?

[Lucky]

You can go back and forth on term limits. In my opinion, it leaves a bunch of amateurs making big decisions. The whole country is on the decline anyway thanks to George W. Bush. His tax cuts and two unwanted wars have devastated the economy. Beyond that, his Republican appointees plundered the treasury to the extent they could, sharing it with their fat cat friends. They deregulated any meaningful laws to keep the environment or honest business practices flowing. Bush put Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court to dismantle the Constitution. And they skillfully got Joe Blow to go along with it all in order to protect his right to bear a gun that he only uses when drunk.

[lookin]

Thanks, Lucky. I really appreciate it when someone provides factual info, and in a format that's easy to follow.

[Guest hitoallusa]

One term limit is worse. They will constantly think where to work after their one term. Maybe Goldman Sachs(Sorry just for an example consider as an honor) or a law firm or a consulting firm. Before their one term is over they will vote for their lobbyists. Not all politicians are bad so it kills for those who really want to work for the country.

[Guest hitoallusa]

I second that!

Thanks, Lucky. I really appreciate it when someone provides factual info, and in a format that's easy to follow.

[RA1]

Wasn't that the original intent, to have citizen lawmakers? Now we have professional polititicans whose thoughts and words and deeds are crafted by their staff and lobbyists. We need part time "amateurs" who are not feeding off the public trough and running popularity contests.

Best regards,

RA1

[Lucky]

Wasn't that the original intent, to have citizen lawmakers? Now we have professional polititicans whose thoughts and words and deeds are crafted by their staff and lobbyists. We need part time "amateurs" who are not feeding off the public trough and running popularity contests.

Best regards,

RA1

For most of us, life is different than it was in 1776. The country has grown beyond anything the Founding Fathers could have imagined. Big government requires smart people to run it. And we do have big government, not just to smite the Tea Party, but because we have a big population. Do we want the finest people running it(in theory) or do we want to continually turn the job over to rank amateurs?

There is waste in government. The Bush wars, the Bush tax cuts- they compounded what was a solvable problem. Let's cut defense spending, cut out waste across the government, reduce eligibility for social services based upon need. Let the rich pay a tax rate higher than the one their secretary pays.

Those are my Tea Party goals, and I don't even like tea!

[Lucky]

Thanks, Lucky. I really appreciate it when someone provides factual info, and in a format that's easy to follow.

You are welcome. When I saw such a succinct and clear look at the debt problem, I couldn't resist.

[Guest DarnTop82]

Lucky, I like the graph. Thanks for posting it.

However, the "Bush Tax Cut's" were more than just GB's. Yeah, he was President when they occurred, but didn't we still have a House and Congress then? They had to go along with it also. So, I know hating on George Bush and blaming a single man for everything is popular, but is a red herring.

Also, GB was president for 8 years. Obama has been in the office for what...three? At the rate that Obama has spent money, and considering most of his changes in regards to spending haven't even started to kick in, Obama is set to triple or quadruples Bush's spending.

On a side note, why didn't the Democrats and Obama pass any budget bills or ANYTHING while they owned the White House, Congress AND the House.

Lastly, what are your opinions on Great Britain and the massive riots occurring in London at the moment?

Wait, one more. I also take offense at your characterization of people who carry firearms and enjoy them as a hobby and realizing they are our right to keep and bear. Your description of said people is racist in nature, and one could only point it out.

If a person was to make a reference to a stereotype of a popular "minority" in a prejudicial way, you would be offended, but if it's towards "drunken rednecks" then it's suddenly ok?

[Lucky]

I am glad that you like the graph, DarnTop82. If you have read my other posts over time, you won't find me saying many good things about Congress or Obama either. I think they have all let us down.

I think the riots in Great Britain are a sign of neglect of the affected youth and an indication that their needs should be heard.

I did not characterize any ethnicity in the gun thing. Joe Blow could be any color. he could even be a woman.

[lookin]

On a side note, why didn't the Democrats and Obama pass any budget bills or ANYTHING while they owned the White House, Congress AND the House.

I've been pondering the same thing. Running two wars without taxing ourselves to pay for them was, and continues to be, boneheaded. I'm no history expert, but I can't think of any country that managed to do it without either pulling riches out of the countries they invaded or going down the tubes themselves. Part of the problem, of course, was that the Bush administration was adamant that the wars would cost only a few billion dollars and we'd be in and out in no time. In the run-up to the Iraq war, they also swore that other countries would help foot the bill; and, of course, that never occurred in any meaningful way.

By the time Obama came into office, it was clear that the wars would cost trillions and that, not only had we not raised taxes to pay for them, we had actually lowered taxes. Then came the decision to send in more troops. In fairness, I think Obama was between a rock and a hard place. He had three choices if he wanted to avoid running up the deficit: (1) bring the troops home at once, (2) raise taxes substantially, and/or (3) get other countries to kick in a trillion or two. Number 3 wasn't happening. Number 1 would have put the 'loss' of two wars on his doorstep, and number 2 would have labelled him and his party 'tax and spend liberals', without a chance of reelection.

Furthermore, neither option 1 or 2 would have made it through Congress except, as you say, during a brief window with a filibuster-proof Senate. If his eye had been solely on the deficit-reduction ball, he could have immediately brought the troops home and raised taxes to pay for past misadventures. But he had made a commitment to working with Republicans and avoiding bipartisanship as much as possible. In hindsight, he may have made the wrong call.

In fairness though, in 2009, was anyone truly expecting that Congress would soon reach levels of intransigence that would make even Roger Griswold blush?

[TampaYankee]

Lucky, I like the graph. Thanks for posting it.

However, the "Bush Tax Cut's" were more than just GB's. Yeah, he was President when they occurred, but didn't we still have a House and Congress then? They had to go along with it also. So, I know hating on George Bush and blaming a single man for everything is popular, but is a red herring.

Actually it is no red herring. He does get the blame for most of it, rightfully, along with The Hammer and McConnel. Bush proposed the tax cut. The Hammer ruled the House with an Iron fist, so much so that he held the Prescription Drug Bill vote open all night until he could browbeat enough of his own party to pass it. (He made the Dems ask for a Pottie Pass to get access to the bathrooms.) McConnell failing to get the Tax Increase through a cloture vote in the Senate declared it a budget reconciliation bill which circumvented the cloture vote failure and permitted adoption with a simple majority the GOP had. So true, Congress did participate, but it essentially was a GOP simple majority Congress that rubber-stamped it without any substantial Dem support. So we can add McConnell and Tom Delay to the Bush 'hate' list you imagine.